Karan Singh v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.232 Case No. : CRM-M-25083-2025 Decided On : August 12, 2025 Karan Singh ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Haryana ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Ashish Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sulender Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.428 dated 23.12.2024, under Section 109(1), 115, 126, 232(2), 3(5), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (After investigation, Section 109(1) converted to Section 110 BNS), registered at Police Station Israna, District Panipat. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 22.12.2024, police got the information that one Virender was referred from Civil Hospital, Panipat to PGI, Khanpur in an assault case. Accordingly, police reached there on 23.12.2024 and after getting the necessary permission from concerned doctor, recorded statement of injured, who stated that on 22.12.2024, at about 07:30 PM, he had gone to his fields. His neighbour Karan Singh came and asked him to compromise the matter in FIR No.50 of
2021, otherwise he would kill him and his family members. The complainant further stated that to avoid any altercation, he moved towards his house and when he reached near Canara Bank, at about 08:00 PM, one Ankit stopped his motorcycle and hit on his waist with gandasi. Then, he also called his brothers by making phone calls. Pardeep, Tinku and Karan armed with danda, darati and gandasi came there. Pardeep hit the complainant 2-3 times on his head with gandasi, Tinku attacked with darati (sickle) on waist, thumb and elbow of the complainant and Karan hit the complainant several times on his shoulder and waist with danda. In the meanwhile, many persons gathered at the spot and the accused persons fled along with their respective weapons. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of injured complainant, the FIR in question was registered.
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Initially, it was stated in the FIR that the petitioner attacked the complainant with danda but during investigation, it was stated that no weapon was used by the petitioner. Rather, only punches and slaps have been attributed to the petitioner. As per the opinion of the doctor, all alleged injuries are simple in nature and thus, offence under Section 110 BNS is not made out against the petitioner. As far as FIR No.50 of 2021 is concerned, the complainant has already been examined in that case and the present petitioner is not involved in that FIR. It has also been apprised to the Court that co-accused Pradeep has been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-21367-2025.
Another co-accused Tinku has also been granted bail vide order dated 05.06.
Sessions Judge, Panipat. He further urged that trial of the case is likely to take a long time. Therefore, the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.
Custody Certificate dated 11.08.2025 of the petitioner has been filed today in Court, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present bail petition while contending that the petitioner assaulted the complainant in order to pressurize him for compromise in another FIR and in the scuffle, complainant received injuries even on the vital parts of the body. Therefore, the petitioner should not be granted the concession of bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.
As per the Status Report, filed on behalf of respondent-State, the petitioner was not armed with any weapon at the time of incident. However, he allegedly gave beatings to the complainant with fist and legs. Custody Certificate dated 11.08.2025, which has been placed on record, the petitioner has already undergone custody of 07 months and 18 days. Trial of the case is going on. Conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
August 12, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.